Deeper than primes

The Man · Aug 22, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Your principle of superposition is not real superposition, because it is based on strict identities.

That principle makes no such assertions, stop lying Doron.

doronshadmi said:
Real superposition is not less than superposition of identities.

Your “superposition” is not any superposition simply by your own assertion, stop lying Doron.

doronshadmi said:
Again, stop lying first of all to yourself.

I never started.

epix · Aug 22, 2011

The Man said:
I doubt much here will help Doron, as that particular reference was directed at you the question you should be asking is did it help you. Given your assertion “look at the diffraction and the absence of frequency of EMR as a factor in the effect” the answer would appear to be ‘no, it didn’t’.

The former part of your post directly disputes that latter. Please epix, don’t start getting like Doron and directly contradicting yourself, nor assuming that since you simply choose you focus on wavelength, or just length in general, that the cited relation becomes somehow irrelevant. The inverse of frequency (Hz) is cycle period usually designated as t and measured in seconds. A light second is a measure of distance equal to about 299,792,458 meters. So 1 Hz, or one second for a cycle of a wave of light equals 299,792,458 meters. Reduce that by one meter and you get a distance of .999999996664 light seconds or 1.000000003336 Hz, meaning an increase of .000000003336 Hz for each meter decrease. Certainly more difficult to work in Hz and bit less intuitive as they are inversely related (decreased length per cycle means increased cycle per unit time) but certainly not something that “cannot be adjusted by unit called Hertz”. We tend to focus on aspects that are easier to work with and usually help to make things more intuitive. However, this by no means precludes us from working in whatever aspects the relations permit no matter how difficult or unintuitive they may seem.

Before you mentioned the wavelength as “beef of the laser technology -- to sneak through some obstacles without diffracting the beam.” and other references of a similar sort that tend to make me think that the fact that the wavelength (and wave’s vector of travel) is perpendicular to the opening, may not be clear to you. Is that the case?

Doron pasted a diffraction pattern resulting from a perpendicular setup, like this one: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/diffraction/basicdiffraction/
So I simply stay with the basic concept. You can see that the answer to one of the principle inquiry into the diffraction effect doesn't include the frequency, namely the position of secondaries where sin(angle) = wavelength/distance. When the subject involves this topic
http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/fmq.html
the wavelength doesn't come often to the surface even though frequency and wavelength are closely related, as you said.

The laser beam is a well-suited medium to study the principle effects of diffraction. Which one would you chose?
http://www.laserglow.com/S53
There is a variety offered, such as 435 nm Blue, 501 nm Green, 556 nm Yellow, and so on. The manufacturer uses the wavelength, not the frequency to make the distinction and that's because of the assumed application of the device.

If you want to study proteins, then ordinary microscope won't do -- you need to buy one that emits EMR of a wavelength that is shorter than the one of the visible light, but the ideal condition of perpendicularity wouldn't materialize under these conditions. So other consideration has to be taken into account, but none of them concern the one that you have been discussing with Doron. Maybe I was late when the shift toward "single and singular frequencies" left the topic of diffraction and entered another one. Only Doronetics can provide a seamless transition from single and singular frequencies to negative dimensions of objects (measured in Hertz per dimension, I guess.)

doronshadmi · Aug 22, 2011

The Man said:
That principle makes no such assertions,

And this is exactly the reason of why it is not real superposition, which is not less than superposition of identities.

The Man said:
stop lying Doron.

Open your strict-only realm, in order to realize that it is nothing but some particular case of Distinction.

As long as you avoid it, you are lying to yourself.

doronshadmi · Aug 22, 2011

jsfisher said:
That is not where your contradiction lies.

You are invited to explicitly show your claim about my contradiction.

The stage is yours. :popcorn1

doronshadmi · Aug 22, 2011

About one thing we are sure: Enough with the prevailing straight-jacket approach of “Shut up and calculate!”

( http://a-c-elitzur.co.il/uploads/articlesdocs/photon5(2).pdf )

jsfisher · Aug 22, 2011

doronshadmi said:
You are invited to explicitly show your claim about my contradiction.

The stage is yours.

I already did back in the same post where I made the accusation. There's only four sentences of yours there, Doron, and you can eliminated the first since it is just an irrelevant pointer to work by your current-favorite crank. It's not like the contradiction is camouflaged or anything like that.

doronshadmi · Aug 23, 2011

jsfisher said:
I already did back in the same post where I made the accusation. There's only four sentences of yours there, Doron, and you can eliminated the first since it is just an irrelevant pointer to work by your current-favorite crank. It's not like the contradiction is camouflaged or anything like that.

0 apples - 1 apple = -1 apple

-1 apple is the absence of 1 apple, and it is not Nothingness.

Your left-only hemisphere community actually uses induction by ignoring the spatial right hemisphere aspect of a one comprehensive framework that is not less than verbal\spatial reasoning.

For example, let's look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7392225&postcount=16031.

Your reply in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7392562&postcount=16032 clearly demonstrates how your induction is limited only to left-only hemisphere, which has no ability to understand that no branch of that tree actually reaches to any other branch of that tree, even if there are infinitely many levels of that tree.

This understanding can't be achieved unless Spatial\Verbal(Symbolic) aspects are used as a one comprehensive framework (which is not your Verbal(Symbolic)-only half-brain case).

Once again, you can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7426118&postcount=16171 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7426018&postcount=16169 but it does not prevent from you to air your "bla bla ..." http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7426067&postcount=16170 ill view.

doronshadmi · Aug 23, 2011

The Man you asked about intermediate states between one open slit pattern and two open slits pattern ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6023758&postcount=10102 ).

Please read http://dolevim.org/shahar/Files/DisserTeXion.pdf (at least chapter 4):

4.1 Introduction

Nearly always, measurement is regarded as a single event, whereby the superposition of many possible states gives its place ("collapses") to one state. In reality, however, there can be many intermediate stages in the measurement process, stages that only change the eventual probabilities without yet giving a definite result [WZ79, BSCK92, KB92, DNR98]. In the following chapter I will discuss a procedure for partial measurement and its implications.

Partial measurement modifies the quantum state, turning a state of superposition not into a definite outcome but into a greater probability for one. Partial measurement occurs when only part of the wave function is transferred to the detector. Its roots lie at the end of the 1970's [WZ79, Bar80] when a two-slit like experiments were shown to extract partial knowledge about the particle's path in a price of partial blurring of the interference pattern.

No matter if photons with different energies are used in the "which-way" detector, or not, the fact is that partial measurement is actually possible, and Organic Number's DS (Distinction States) are useful in order to measure the changes of the intermediate patterns on the screen detector.

epix · Aug 23, 2011

Help yourself. Have an apple.

There are no apples in the basket. Not even one.

Well, zero apples in the basket doesn't mean that you can't take one apple from it. Let me explain . . .

doronshadmi said:
0 apples - 1 apple = -1 apple

-1 apple is the absence of 1 apple, and it is not Nothingness.

doronshadmi · Aug 23, 2011

For more details about the spectrum between being wave or being particle, please look at http://www.atomwave.org/rmparticle/...topic/decoherence refs/englert visibility.pdf

doronshadmi · Aug 23, 2011

epix said:
[qimg]http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_514/1277040727u0TIyH.jpg[/qimg]
Help yourself. Have an apple.

There are no apples in the basket. Not even one.

Well, zero apples in the basket doesn't mean that you can't take one apple from it. Let me explain . . .

I ate the last apple.

In that case please give me 1$.

I do not have any money.

In that case your bank account has -1$, because you owe me that 1$.

jsfisher · Aug 24, 2011

doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:

I already did back in the same post where I made the accusation. There's only four sentences of yours there, Doron, and you can eliminated the first since it is just an irrelevant pointer to work by your current-favorite crank. It's not like the contradiction is camouflaged or anything like that.

Click to expand...

0 apples - 1 apple = -1 apple

-1 apple is the absence of 1 apple, and it is not Nothingness.

So, you again attempt to evade your contradiction by trying to distract everyone with physical impossibilities.

Your left-only hemisphere community actually uses induction by ignoring the spatial right hemisphere aspect of a one comprehensive framework that is not less than verbal\spatial reasoning.

And you continue to accuse everyone else of the failings that are uniquely yours.

Oh, by the way, I see you have as little understanding of mathematical induction as your crank hero.

Be that as it may, there is still that contradiction looming. It renders your entire latest aside meaningless. Care to go back, instead, to showing how any of Doronetics is actually useful for anything (other than hand waving)?

The Man · Aug 24, 2011

epix said:
Doron pasted a diffraction pattern resulting from a perpendicular setup, like this one: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/diffraction/basicdiffraction/
So I simply stay with the basic concept. You can see that the answer to one of the principle inquiry into the diffraction effect doesn't include the frequency, namely the position of secondaries where sin(angle) = wavelength/distance. When the subject involves this topic
http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/fmq.html
the wavelength doesn't come often to the surface even though frequency and wavelength are closely related, as you said.

The laser beam is a well-suited medium to study the principle effects of diffraction. Which one would you chose?
http://www.laserglow.com/S53
There is a variety offered, such as 435 nm Blue, 501 nm Green, 556 nm Yellow, and so on. The manufacturer uses the wavelength, not the frequency to make the distinction and that's because of the assumed application of the device.

[qimg]http://www.lbl.gov/images/MicroWorlds/EMSpec.gif[/qimg]

If you want to study proteins, then ordinary microscope won't do -- you need to buy one that emits EMR of a wavelength that is shorter than the one of the visible light, but the ideal condition of perpendicularity wouldn't materialize under these conditions. So other consideration has to be taken into account, but none of them concern the one that you have been discussing with Doron. Maybe I was late when the shift toward "single and singular frequencies" left the topic of diffraction and entered another one. Only Doronetics can provide a seamless transition from single and singular frequencies to negative dimensions of objects (measured in Hertz per dimension, I guess.)

I doubt Doron was ever really on the topic of diffraction. Perhaps it was just something that he might call ‘real diffraction’ while claiming it does not involve diffraction.

Again you still seem to have a singular focus epix and that singular focus in no way negates the stated relation that you evidently do not dispute.

So I’ll give it just one more try before abandoning you to your own predilections.

Look at any radio and you will find the tuning indication by frequency. A long time ago that was a dial that one would use to tune the radio. At the other end of that dial was a wiper that would swipe across a coil changing the effective length of that coil as the dial was turned (and the radio tuned to a resonate frequency). So while you may still be late, the direct relations of frequency to length (whether it be wavelength or the length of a coil) still remain even if you just want to focus on length.

The Man · Aug 24, 2011

doronshadmi said:
And this is exactly the reason of why it is not real superposition, which is not less than superposition of identities.

Well thank you for admitting that your assertion “it is based on strict identities” was false. Unfortunately, you are still left with your own assertions that your “superposition” does not use the principle of superposition and thus not any kind of superposition. So as long as you keep referring to your “superposition” as any kind of superposition you are just lying. I’m sure most here understand why you just want to use the word ‘superposition’ without its meaning, so you can attempt to conflate your nonsense with quantum superposition. Again unfortunately as you assert your “superposition” does not use the principle of superposition and quantum superposition does, that attempted conflation is also just a lie, simply by your own assertion.

doronshadmi said:
Open your strict-only realm, in order to realize that it is nothing but some particular case of Distinction.

As long as you avoid it, you are lying to yourself.

Stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning and lying onto others.

The Man · Aug 24, 2011

doronshadmi said:
The Man you asked about intermediate states between one open slit pattern and two open slits pattern (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6023758&postcount=10102 ).

No I didn’t, this is the question I asked…

The Man said:
Have you found that “additional experiment” you referred to yet?

doronshadmi said:
Please read http://dolevim.org/shahar/Files/DisserTeXion.pdf (at least chapter 4):

So are you claiming this philosophical dissertation is about or cites the experiment to which you were referring?

Please show specifically where that experiment is referenced or cited in this philosophical dissertation.

doronshadmi said:
No matter if photons with different energies are used in the "which-way" detector, or not, the fact is that partial measurement is actually possible, and Organic Number's DS (Distinction States) are useful in order to measure the changes of the intermediate patterns on the screen detector.

Fine, then show how you calculate those patterns, those ‘changes’ (with your Organic Number's DS) and the measured quantitative experimental evidence agreeing with your calculations, or stop just trying to lie about the usefulness of your ‘ON’ BS.

epix · Aug 24, 2011

The Man said:
So I’ll give it just one more try before abandoning you to your own predilections.

Look at any radio and you will find the tuning indication by frequency. A long time ago that was a dial that one would use to tune the radio. At the other end of that dial was a wiper that would swipe across a coil changing the effective length of that coil as the dial was turned (and the radio tuned to a resonate frequency). So while you may still be late, the direct relations of frequency to length (whether it be wavelength or the length of a coil) still remain even if you just want to focus on length.

I never said that there is no "direct relation of frequency to length" even though I would use "direct relation of length to frequency," given your example of radio tuning where this procedure/function sets independent variable as meter (or milimeter in particular) and dependent variable as Hertz.

In the effect of diffraction, it is also the wavelength that is the functional parameter. It doesn't really matter now, coz Doron frequently changes subjects and now we are discussing at length negative apples.

doronshadmi · Aug 24, 2011

jsfisher said:
So, you again attempt to evade your contradiction by trying to distract everyone with physical impossibilities.

So again you don't distinguish between negative value and Nothingness.

jsfisher said:
Oh, by the way, I see you have as little understanding of mathematical induction as your crank hero.

Well it is your crank hero, and your left-hemisphere-only reasoning uses induction exactly as your crank hero, because all you get is the symbolic expression (for example 0.111...₂) by totally ignore the spatial expression, exactly as you do in the following case:

Let's look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7392225&postcount=16031.

Your reply in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7392562&postcount=16032 clearly demonstrates how your induction is limited only to left-only hemisphere, which has no ability to understand that no branch of that tree actually reaches to any other branch of that tree, even if there are infinitely many levels of that tree.

This understanding can't be achieved unless Spatial\Verbal(Symbolic) aspects are used as a one comprehensive framework (which is not your Verbal(Symbolic)-only half-brain case).

doronshadmi · Aug 24, 2011

The Man said:
So are you claiming this philosophical dissertation is about or cites the experiment to which you were referring?

Please show specifically where that experiment is referenced or cited in this philosophical dissertation.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7501131&postcount=16290

The Man said:
Fine, then show how you calculate those patterns, those ‘changes’ (with your Organic Number's DS) and the measured quantitative experimental evidence agreeing with your calculations, or stop just trying to lie about the usefulness of your ‘ON’ BS.

Your strict-only BS can't get that the spectrum between single-silt pattern and double-silts pattern is the transition between Non-locality (wave) and Locality (particle) properties of wavicles, which is characterized by the distinction degree of positions, where strict positions are defined by strict ids and non-strict positions are defined by non-strict ids, exactly as done by ONs.

Schrödinger equation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation ) which stands at the basis of QM totally misses that relation between symmetry and non-strict distinction and asymmetry and strict distinction (as shown by ON) because this equation is based on variables with strict identities (it is closed under the asymmetry of strict distinction and so are the measured quantitative experimental results, which are calculated by this equation).

The paradox of the heap ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox ) is a direct result of using induction by strict ids.

This paradox stands also at the basis of the transition between macro and micro systems.

ONs actually solve this paradox because by Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction Trees (URDT) the transition between the macro and the micro is based directly on the very essence of Distinction, where strict distinction (as used by Schrödinger equation or standard induction) is nothing but some particular case of URDT.

The Man said:
it is the best match to reality (experimental evidence) that we currently have.

It is the best match to reality as it is observed by community of Verbal (left-hemisphere) only skills.

This current state is going to be changed when both hemispheres (spatial and verbal) are combined into a one comprehensive scientific theoretical\experimental framework.

doronshadmi · Aug 24, 2011

epix said:
It doesn't really matter now, coz Doron frequently changes subjects and now we are discussing at length negative apples.

Nonsense.

I say exactly the opposite, negative values are not equivalent to Nothingness, ( you don't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7501260&postcount=16291 ).

doronshadmi · Aug 24, 2011

John McCrone ( http://www.dichotomistic.com/logic_vagueness_1.html ) and me are "mindly related".

epix · Aug 24, 2011

Originally Posted by epix
It doesn't really matter now, coz Doron frequently changes subjects and now we are discussing at length negative apples.

doronshadmi said:
Nonsense.

I say exactly the opposite, negative values are not equivalent to Nothingness, ( you don't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7501260&postcount=16291 ).

I never mentioned "Nothingness," a term probably used in medieval times by the servants of Venerable Bede. The opposite of negative apples, which I did mention, is either positive apples (polarity) or a negative apple (plural/singular).

If you lend the only hammer in your toolbox, then there are zero hammers in there, but the hammer still exists elsewhere. If you eat the only apple in the fruit basket, then there are zero apples in there as well. But does the apple still exist, like that hammer? How about the case where you lend an apple to someone and that person eats it, yet later returns an apple to your fruit basket? And what if you lend a hammer from your fruit basket and the borrower eats it and returns a screwdriver instead? Can you solve

-1 hammer + 1 screwdriver = ?

If you can't, then your right hemisphere very likely suffers from Nothingness and Lochness at the same time. You need to borrow the Golden Hammer of Quick Fix from the Relentless Reptile for a promptly repair and eat plenty of apples from The Strictly Non-Prohibited Basket of Knowledge afterwards just to make sure.

doronshadmi · Aug 25, 2011

Latest researches of brain's functions ( for example http://www-e.openu.ac.il/geninfor/openletter/ol18/pages12.pdf or http://www.rense.com/general2/rb.htm ) show that there is no universal clear-cut specialization between left and right hemispheres.

Yet brain's function is an amplitude between "Seeing Local" and "Seeing Global (non-local)".

epix · Aug 25, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Latest researches of brain's functions ( for example http://www-e.openu.ac.il/geninfor/openletter/ol18/pages12.pdf or http://www.rense.com/general2/rb.htm ) show that there is no universal clear-cut specialization between left and right hemispheres.

So how could you tell that it was the left hemisphere responsible for not understanding your version of the Tree of Knowledge?

Your reply in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=16032 clearly demonstrates how your induction is limited only to left-only hemisphere, which has no ability to understand that no branch of that tree actually reaches to any other branch of that tree, even if there are infinitely many levels of that tree.

Males are generally taller than females but in the case of Adam, Eve, and the Forbidden Fruit, it was the female who did the reaching. What does that imply?

you reach for the peach
and settle for the apple
on the beach you preach
and in the church you... you... you...

you peach for the reach
and apple for the settle
in the church you preach
and on the beach you... you...

adam did the reaching
and eve did the picking
the priests did the preaching
and rodents did the clicking

-------------------------

doronshadmi · Aug 26, 2011

epix said:
So how could you tell that it was the left hemisphere responsible for not understanding your version of the Tree of Knowledge?

In this case "Left-hemisphere" is a general name for Local observation, where "Right-hemisphere" is a general name for global (non-local) observation.

The exact location of "hot spots" in the brain do not change the fact that the brain's function is a one comprehensive amplitude between the Local and the Global (Non-local).

It is clear that the mathematical community was developed mostly by Local observation that is characterized by strict verbal_symbolic asymmetric expressions.

The visual_spatial non-strict and symmetric expression are almost neglected by this community, and Organic Mathematics is an afford to combine visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic skills into a one comprehensive framework, as follows:

Uncertainly x Redundancy Distinction-Trees (URDT) extends the Principle of Superposition also on the used variables of a given mathematical expression, for example:

A²=B and A=B are mathematical expressions.

According to URDT, these expressions are some cases of already strict objects (which are notated, in this case, by strict A and strict B symbols) that are used as the variables of, for example, A²=B and A=B expressions.

Here is an example of URDT tool, in this case:

2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree shows exactly how a mixture of states in superposition of identities (AB,AB) is changed into strict (A,B) identities:

Code:

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under F (2,1), where AB is non-strict and B is strict (no uncertainty is involved with strict objects).

An example of strictness is the case of DS (A,B) under F (1,1) under the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree, and this case is an example of the common use among mathematical expressions.

By using URDT one becomes aware of the fact that strict mathematical expressions are nothing but some particular case of more comprehensive framework, which according to it the mathematical expressions themselves are under certain degrees that are defined, for example, between F (2,2) to F (1,0) (F (0,0) is the common null state of all n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Distinction-Trees, where n is any non-negative integer).

A fundamental notion that is involved here is the awareness of the fact that the interactions can be done in parallel, serial, or any possible intermediate states between them, where the mathematical expressions themselves are not excluded (otherwise we may get wrong conclusions, which are based on the fact that we actually using only strict expressions as hidden (and unconscious) assumptions of our mathematical work).

URDT may first be used as a tool that helps to be more aware of one’s mathematical work, in order to avoid (as much as possible) hidden assumptions, as shortly explained above.

Maybe URDT can be used as a factor of the formal development of "The Science of Distinction".

A version of some preliminary steps of that subject (of Moshe Klein and me) can be found in the following paper (this version was written before URDT but the notions of URDT are used there):

http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf
(International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Volume 49 No. 3 2008, 329-340)

-----------------------------------------------------------
Here is the abstract taken from Philip J. Davis and James A. Anderson book called “Nonanalytic Aspects of Mathematics and Their Implication for Research and Education,” SIAM Review 21(1979), 112-117:

Abstract
In this paper we make a distinction between the practice of mathematics as it is usually presented--a logical chain of abstract, analytical reasoning from premises to conclusions--and how mathematics seems to be done in actuality--as a series of nonverbal, analog, often kinesthetic or visual insights. Mathematics in recent years has created a hierarchy with highly abstract, logical and symbolic material at the peak and with more geometrical, visual, and analog material held to be of lesser worth. We argue that humans are known to vary widely in their approaches to cognition and that the areas of the human brain specifically related to language and logical analysis seem to comprise only a part of the machinery of our intellect. We suggest that it would be wise for the practitioners of mathematics, and perhaps especially the students of mathematics to be aware of the very important nonverbal elements in mathematics. We feel that excessive emphasis on the abstract, analytic aspects of thought may have had deleterious effects on the profession and that a more appropriate balance, more in line with our cognitive endowment as humans, is desirable.
----------------------------------------------------------

The Real-line and non-local numbers

By using verbal_symbolic and visual_spatial skills we get a one comprehensive framework.

For example, by Traditional Mathematics (which is mostly based on verbal_symbolic skills) 0.111...₂ = 0.999...₁₀ = 1 where 1 is the considered mathematical object (the number itself) and 0.111...₂ or 0.999...₁₀ are some numerals (out of many representations) that represent number 1.

By using verbal_symbolic and visual_spatial skills as follows:

one understands that no branch of that tree actually reaches any other branch of that tree "downward" , no matter how many levels
that tree has (in other words, there is no homeomorphism between 0 dimensional space (notated by "0";"1" symbols)
and 1 dimensional space (notated by "_____" spatial non-composed object)).

According to this comprehensive framework 0.111...₂ is a number of its own < number 1 by 0.000...1₂ where the "...1" part
of that number is the irreducibility of ___ 1 dimensional space into 0 dimensional space (known as a point).

By using verbal_symbolic and visual_spatial skills one enables to distinguish between non-local numbers like 0.111...₂ or 0.000...1₂, and local numbers like 1.

Furthermore, no collection of, for example, 0 dimensional spaces along a 1 dimensional space has the power of the continuum of a 1 dimensional space.

By understanding the power of the continuum in terms of spatial skills, one understands that no collection of sub-objects of a given space (mathematical or physical) has the power of the continuum of that space, or in other words, any given collection of sub-objects is incomplete with respect to the "host" space.

The non-locality of 0.111...₂ or 0.000...1₂ is "naturally vague" in terms of location, and one actually discovers/invents that the Real-line has a non-empty set of non-strict numbers between 0 dimensional space and 1 dimensional space.

(By generalization, given a "host" space, no collection of "hosted" spaces has the power of the "host" space).

----------------------------------------------------------

About awareness

Awareness' development is first of all the ability to be aware of finer levels of one's thinking process (no matter what meaning is given to thoughts) until one is aware of the finest state of awareness, which is naturally free of any thinking process.

The development of one's awareness is his\her ability to be aware of the finest level without losing it during the thinking process, such that both calmness and activity are present in one's mind without prevent each other.

By developing such state of mind, one is at the optimal conditions to express his\her abilities in any wished way, which is naturally free of contradiction w.r.t other expressions, exactly because one's mind expresses itself right from the source of all possible expressions.

Organic Mathematics is first of all a systematic method that uses mathematical insights in order to open one's mind to the Unity of simplicity (calmness) and activity (complex expressions).

Here is some analogy using 1-dimensional space as the Unity of both straight-line (calmness) and curved-lines (complex expressions), as shown by the following diagram:

By gently meditate on the following diagram one is opened to his\her non-subjective level of awareness (illustrated by the straight line), at least at the level of the analogy (which is not the actual non-subjective state of mind).

By this analogy the 1 dimensional space is the Unity of both calmness and its complex expressions, whether they are symmetric and vogue or asymmetric and strict (including intermediate symmetric\asymmetric states).

epix · Aug 27, 2011

doronshadmi said:
In this case "Left-hemisphere" is a general name for Local observation, where "Right-hemisphere" is a general name for global (non-local) observation.

The exact location of "hot spots" in the brain do not change the fact that the brain's function is a one comprehensive amplitude between the Local and the Global (Non-local).

It is clear that the mathematical community was developed mostly by Local observation that is characterized by strict verbal_symbolic asymmetric expressions.

The visual_spatial non-strict and symmetric expression are almost neglected by this community, and Organic Mathematics is an afford to combine visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic skills into a one comprehensive framework, as follows:

Uncertainly x Redundancy Distinction-Trees (URDT) extends the Principle of Superposition also on the used variables of a given mathematical expression, for example:

A²=B and A=B are mathematical expressions.

According to URDT, these expressions are some cases of already strict objects (which are notated, in this case, by strict A and strict B symbols) that are used as the variables of, for example, A²=B and A=B expressions.

Here is an example of URDT tool, in this case:

2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree shows exactly how a mixture of states in superposition of identities (AB,AB) is changed into strict (A,B) identities:

Code:

(AB,AB) (AB,A) (AB,B) (AB) (A,A) (B,B) (A,B) (A) (B) () A * * A * * A * . A * . A * * A . . A * . A * . A . . A . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | B *_* B *_. B *_* B *_. B ._. B *_* B ._* B ._. B *_. B ._. (2,2) = (AB,AB) (2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B) (2,0)= (AB) (1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B) (1,0)= (A),(B) (0,0)= ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under F (2,1), where AB is non-strict and B is strict (no uncertainty is involved with strict objects).

An example of strictness is the case of DS (A,B) under F (1,1) under the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree, and this case is an example of the common use among mathematical expressions.

By using URDT one becomes aware of the fact that strict mathematical expressions are nothing but some particular case of more comprehensive framework, which according to it the mathematical expressions themselves are under certain degrees that are defined, for example, between F (2,2) to F (1,0) (F (0,0) is the common null state of all n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Distinction-Trees, where n is any non-negative integer).

A fundamental notion that is involved here is the awareness of the fact that the interactions can be done in parallel, serial, or any possible intermediate states between them, where the mathematical expressions themselves are not excluded (otherwise we may get wrong conclusions, which are based on the fact that we actually using only strict expressions as hidden (and unconscious) assumptions of our mathematical work).

URDT may first be used as a tool that helps to be more aware of one’s mathematical work, in order to avoid (as much as possible) hidden assumptions, as shortly explained above.

Maybe URDT can be used as a factor of the formal development of "The Science of Distinction".

A version of some preliminary steps of that subject (of Moshe Klein and me) can be found in the following paper (this version was written before URDT but the notions of URDT are used there):

http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf
(International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Volume 49 No. 3 2008, 329-340)

-----------------------------------------------------------
Here is the abstract taken from Philip J. Davis and James A. Anderson book called “Nonanalytic Aspects of Mathematics and Their Implication for Research and Education,” SIAM Review 21(1979), 112-117:

Abstract
In this paper we make a distinction between the practice of mathematics as it is usually presented--a logical chain of abstract, analytical reasoning from premises to conclusions--and how mathematics seems to be done in actuality--as a series of nonverbal, analog, often kinesthetic or visual insights. Mathematics in recent years has created a hierarchy with highly abstract, logical and symbolic material at the peak and with more geometrical, visual, and analog material held to be of lesser worth. We argue that humans are known to vary widely in their approaches to cognition and that the areas of the human brain specifically related to language and logical analysis seem to comprise only a part of the machinery of our intellect. We suggest that it would be wise for the practitioners of mathematics, and perhaps especially the students of mathematics to be aware of the very important nonverbal elements in mathematics. We feel that excessive emphasis on the abstract, analytic aspects of thought may have had deleterious effects on the profession and that a more appropriate balance, more in line with our cognitive endowment as humans, is desirable.
----------------------------------------------------------

The Real-line and non-local numbers

By using verbal_symbolic and visual_spatial skills we get a one comprehensive framework.

For example, by Traditional Mathematics (which is mostly based on verbal_symbolic skills) 0.111...₂ = 0.999...₁₀ = 1 where 1 is the considered mathematical object (the number itself) and 0.111...₂ or 0.999...₁₀ are some numerals (out of many representations) that represent number 1.

By using verbal_symbolic and visual_spatial skills as follows:

[qimg]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6142/5962015728_d2fe37cc5f_z.jpg[/qimg]

one understands that no branch of that tree actually reaches any other branch of that tree "downward" , no matter how many levels
that tree has (in other words, there is no homeomorphism between 0 dimensional space (notated by "0";"1" symbols)
and 1 dimensional space (notated by "_____" spatial non-composed object)).

According to this comprehensive framework 0.111...₂ is a number of its own < number 1 by 0.000...1₂ where the "...1" part
of that number is the irreducibility of ___ 1 dimensional space into 0 dimensional space (known as a point).

By using verbal_symbolic and visual_spatial skills one enables to distinguish between non-local numbers like 0.111...₂ or 0.000...1₂, and local numbers like 1.

Furthermore, no collection of, for example, 0 dimensional spaces along a 1 dimensional space has the power of the continuum of a 1 dimensional space.

By understanding the power of the continuum in terms of spatial skills, one understands that no collection of sub-objects of a given space (mathematical or physical) has the power of the continuum of that space, or in other words, any given collection of sub-objects is incomplete with respect to the "host" space.

The non-locality of 0.111...₂ or 0.000...1₂ is "naturally vague" in terms of location, and one actually discovers/invents that the Real-line has a non-empty set of non-strict numbers between 0 dimensional space and 1 dimensional space.

(By generalization, given a "host" space, no collection of "hosted" spaces has the power of the "host" space).

----------------------------------------------------------

About awareness

Awareness' development is first of all the ability to be aware of finer levels of one's thinking process (no matter what meaning is given to thoughts) until one is aware of the finest state of awareness, which is naturally free of any thinking process.

The development of one's awareness is his\her ability to be aware of the finest level without losing it during the thinking process, such that both calmness and activity are present in one's mind without prevent each other.

By developing such state of mind, one is at the optimal conditions to express his\her abilities in any wished way, which is naturally free of contradiction w.r.t other expressions, exactly because one's mind expresses itself right from the source of all possible expressions.

Organic Mathematics is first of all a systematic method that uses mathematical insights in order to open one's mind to the Unity of simplicity (calmness) and activity (complex expressions).

Here is some analogy using 1-dimensional space as the Unity of both straight-line (calmness) and curved-lines (complex expressions), as shown by the following diagram:

[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg[/qimg]

By gently meditate on the following diagram one is opened to his\her non-subjective level of awareness (illustrated by the straight line), at least at the level of the analogy (which is not the actual non-subjective state of mind).

By this analogy the 1 dimensional space is the Unity of both calmness and its complex expressions, whether they are symmetric and vogue or asymmetric and strict (including intermediate symmetric\asymmetric states).

*************************

I initiated the TN-2 matching process developed at Bell Laboratories, and yes, I have good news for you, and the name of the good news is Roger.

I was proposing something more physical actually! Like this...

IF (and only if) the total universe has a steady value of ZERO, and IF all that we experience of it in the dimensions we inhabit has a positive value, then it must follow that al...ongside this must occur a *negative* side of the universe of equal but opposite *reality* - the two separate 'portions' being in a state of constant mutual interaction *in order for the overall steady value to remain at zero*.

PERHAPS (and only perhaps) the consequences *for us* are that our positive 'portion' demonstrates a physical interaction (that we can see, but cannot otherwise explain) with the other 'negative' portion (that we cannot see). The two opposites, being in mutual but equal conflict with each other, coexist to maintain the overall Zero balance. But *our portion* exhibits apparent strangeness such as (for example) gravity. This could be explained as the unseen *negative* part of the universe interacting with the visible *positive* - an interaction in which our positive matter - through its electromagnetic properties - provides an energy equal to the latent force of the *negative* portion that makes it tend to collapse and become non-existent.

Possibly the unseen *negative* portion of the universe also undergoes an equivalent influence from our own *positive* portion, and this may manifest itself in, for example, the continuing birth of new stars and galaxies (to counterbalance the old stars and galaxies that succumb to the *negative* forces and die, becoming black holes).

So on goes the process - as it always has been doing - without there ever having been a beginning, and there never going to be an end! After all, there is not much that can be done overall with a constant value of Zero is there?

Note the usage of advanced restrictive condition PERHAPSS that complements the established IFF, which resides only and only in the left hemisphere. But Roger seems to employ both hemispheres -- hence PERHAPSS.

Just give Roger a nudge.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=672998175

The Man · Aug 27, 2011

doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7501131&postcount=16290

Again…

The Man said:
Please show specifically where that experiment is referenced or cited in this philosophical dissertation.

The Man said:
…there are no other "photons that are used to define from what silt the measured photon passes the barrier." What you are "talking about" simply demonstrate that you do not understand the double slit experiment.

And again…

The Man said:
Oh, by the way have you found that “additional experiment” you referred to before?

doronshadmi said:
For more details about the spectrum between being wave or being particle, please look at http://www.atomwave.org/rmparticle/...topic/decoherence refs/englert visibility.pdf

Please show specifically where that paper cites such a “spectrum” or stop lying about what that paper does say.

doronshadmi said:
Your strict-only BS can't get that the spectrum between single-silt pattern and double-silts pattern is the transition between Non-locality (wave) and Locality (particle) properties of wavicles, which is characterized by the distinction degree of positions, where strict positions are defined by strict ids and non-strict positions are defined by non-strict ids, exactly as done by ONs.

Again…

The Man said:
Fine, then show how you calculate those patterns, those ‘changes’ (with your Organic Number's DS) and the measured quantitative experimental evidence agreeing with your calculations, or stop just trying to lie about the usefulness of your ‘ON’ BS.

doronshadmi said:
Schrödinger equation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation ) which stands at the basis of QM totally misses that relation between symmetry and non-strict distinction and asymmetry and strict distinction (as shown by ON) because this equation is based on variables with strict identities (it is closed under the asymmetry of strict distinction and so are the measured quantitative experimental results, which are calculated by this equation).

The Schrödinger equation asserts no such basis, stop lying Doron.

doronshadmi said:
The paradox of the heap ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox ) is a direct result of using induction by strict ids.

This paradox stands also at the basis of the transition between macro and micro systems.

No Doron, the “paradox” specifically results from simply having a vague definition of what constitutes a “heap”.

So are you now claiming that your “strict ids” are just vague definitions?

doronshadmi said:
ONs actually solve this paradox because by Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction Trees (URDT) the transition between the macro and the micro is based directly on the very essence of Distinction, where strict distinction (as used by Schrödinger equation or standard induction) is nothing but some particular case of URDT.

Quite the contrary your “OM” in fact feeds off of deliberately vague assertions and directly contradictory meanings. Thus far from solving such a simple paradox like that of the “heap” it wallows in them and simply attempts to smear everything into some equally ill defined amorphously heaping conglomeration.

Please show us exactly where on your Trees of Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction (TURD) you make the distinction between “the macro and the micro”, when a collection of sand becomes a “heap” of sand and why for both cases or stop just lying about your heaping TURDs.

doronshadmi said:
It is the best match to reality as it is observed by community of Verbal (left-hemisphere) only skills.

This current state is going to be changed when both hemispheres (spatial and verbal) are combined into a one comprehensive scientific theoretical\experimental framework.

Stop simply trying to posit your half brain notions onto others.

epix · Aug 28, 2011

doronshadmi said:
It is the best match to reality as it is observed by community of Verbal (left-hemisphere) only skills.

This current state is going to be changed when both hemispheres (spatial and verbal) are combined into a one comprehensive scientific theoretical\experimental framework.

Left Hemisphere + Right Hemisphere = Argumentum Massiveum

doronshadmi · Aug 28, 2011

The Man said:
Please show specifically where that paper cites such a “spectrum” or stop lying about what that paper does say.

( http://www.atomwave.org/rmparticle/...topic/decoherence refs/englert visibility.pdf )

To be more specific, let us consider a two-way interferometer
such as Young’s double-slit experiment or a
Mach-Zehnder setup. The wavelike property is then documented
by well-visible interference fringes, whereas the
particle like property is evident if one can tell along which
way the interferometer has been traversed.
The notions of particle and wave are associated with
mental pictures that are borrowed from classical (i.e.,
pre quantum) physics. These associations are dangerous
because of their obvious limitations. Therefore, “waveparticle
duality” should perhaps be abandoned in favor of
a more neutral term, such as “interferometric duality” or
simply “duality.” The general formulation of this concept
could read as follows.

Duality.—The observations of an interference pattern
and the acquisition of which-way information are mutually
exclusive.

The extreme situations “perfect fringe visibility and no
which-way information” and “full which-way information
and no fringes” are familiar from textbook discussions.
But intermediate stages deserve further study.

...

The general proof of the duality relation (10) is based on
the triangle inequality for the trace-class norm,
tr{|A+B|} =< tr{|A|}+tr{|B|}
which holds for all trace-class operators A and B.
Upon inserting the spectral decomposition of p_D⁽ⁱ⁾...

The Man said:
The Schrödinger equation asserts no such basis, stop lying Doron.

Any mathematical expression is based on strict variables, and Schrödinger equation is not exceptional.

The Man said:
No Doron, the “paradox” specifically results from simply having a vague definition of what constitutes a “heap”.

Exactly because the definition is based on strict things.

The Man said:
So are you now claiming that your “strict ids” are just vague definitions?

No, I am claiming that definition that is based on strict things, can't deal with the "heap" case.

The Man said:
Quite the contrary your “OM” in fact feeds off of deliberately vague assertions and directly contradictory meanings.

The contradiction is in the mind of anyone that tries to get "AB" in terms of "A,B", as you, The Man, are doing all along this thread.

The Man said:
Thus far from solving such a simple paradox like that of the “heap”

What do you mean by "simple paradox"?

The Man said:
Please show us exactly where on your Trees of Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction (TURD) you make the distinction between “the macro and the micro”, when a collection of sand becomes a “heap” of sand and why for both cases or stop just lying about your heaping TURDs.

URDT is a measurement tool for the transition of the symmetric state of superposition of non-strict identities (as observed at the micro quantum level) to the asymmetric state of strict identities (as observed at the macro level).

The macro\micro "heap" paradox is solved because by Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction Trees (URDT) the transition between the macro and the micro is based directly on the very essence of Distinction (where Distinction is not essential for Traditional Mathematics exactly because its expressions are based only on strict variables).

The Man said:
Stop simply trying to posit your half brain notions onto others.

Stop cheating yourself.

The Man · Aug 28, 2011

doronshadmi said:
( http://www.atomwave.org/rmparticle/...topic/decoherence refs/englert visibility.pdf )

Ah, so not only were you unable to find (as expected) the assertion you claimed in the document you cited (“the spectrum between being wave or being particle”) but you were also unable to simply construct that assertion at your whim from searching and plucking just the words you would require from anywhere in that text and reversing the order (that would give you ‘spectral decomposition intermediate stages duality’). An extremely poor attempt at deception Doron, even given the reprehensibly low standard you have already set for yourself on this thread. Again my advice to you remains, just stop lying Doron.

Try reading and understanding the paper instead of just searching for words you want to use to make your own assertion. The uncertainty principle does not claim that one can not measure both the position and momentum of a particle it simply places limits on that, well, “duality” (for a single particle mind you not a collection of particles).

From your cited paper…

FIG. 1. Schematic two-way interferometer. (a) The beam
splitter BS distributes the input among the two ways; after
the phase shifter PS has acted in its f dependent manner, the
beam merger BM recombines the contributions and produces
the output. Measurements on the output may either reveal the
f dependent interference pattern, or alternatively determine
the way that has been taken. (b) When the interferometer
is supplemented by a which-way detector WWD, then both
the interference pattern may be observed and the which-way
information may be acquired, within the limits set by duality.

“within the limits set by duality”.

Game over.

Please insert more quarters to play again.

doronshadmi said:
Any mathematical expression is based on strict variables, and Schrödinger equation is not exceptional.

So now your ‘non-strict’ nonsense is simply not mathematical, just by your own assertion. While I do thank you for that admission, I’m sure it surprises no one here.

doronshadmi said:
Exactly because the definition is based on strict things.

So the definition is vague “because the definition is based on strict things”?

Once again you set a new standard for self-contradiction.

doronshadmi said:
No, I am claiming that definition that is based on strict things, can't deal with the "heap" case.

What “definition”? The definition of a heap? What “strict things” is that “based on”? What definition of a heap are you using and where did you get it from?

doronshadmi said:
The contradiction is in the mind of anyone that tries to get "AB" in terms of "A,B", as you, The Man, are doing all along this thread.

Once again Doron the contradiction stem directly from your assertions, as you “are doing all along this thread”. Again how can anyone else even possibly agree with you when you simply can not agree with yourself?

doronshadmi said:
What do you mean by "simple paradox"?

A paradox that is simple to understand and simple to resolve, as in this case simply the result of the vagueness of natural language.

doronshadmi said:
URDT is a measurement tool for the transition of the symmetric state of superposition of non-strict identities (as observed at the micro quantum level) to the asymmetric state of strict identities (as observed at the macro level).

The macro\micro "heap" paradox is solved because by Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction Trees (URDT) the transition between the macro and the micro is based directly on the very essence of Distinction (where Distinction is not essential for Traditional Mathematics exactly because its expressions are based only on strict variables).

Once again show that specific “measurement” distinguishing “micro” from “macro” or stop simply lying about your heaping TURDs (Trees of Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction)

doronshadmi said:
Stop cheating yourself.

Stop lying Doron, but you just can’t can you.

Again why should anyone continue a conversation with a compulsive liar?

doronshadmi · Aug 29, 2011

The Man said:
Ah, so not only were you unable to find (as expected) the assertion you claimed in the document you cited (“the spectrum between being wave or being particle”)

Stop cheating yourself. The article explicitly deals with intermediate measurement, between

The extreme situations “perfect fringe visibility and no
which-way information” and “full which-way information
and no fringes” ...

by asserting that

... intermediate stages deserve further study.

Your "A,B"-only reasoning really prevents from you to get this article.

Try again to get the paper instead of just searching for words you want to use to make your own "A,B"-only reasoning.

The Man said:
The uncertainty principle does not claim that one can not measure both the position and momentum of a particle it simply places limits on that, well, “duality” (for a single particle mind you not a collection of particles).

Look what is written at the end of the abstract of this article:

The derivation of the inequality does not make use of Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation in any form.

The Man said:
“within the limits set by duality”.

So what, the intermediate states are between

The extreme situations “perfect fringe visibility and no
which-way information” and “full which-way information
and no fringes” ...

The Man said:
Game over.

For "A,B"-only minds like you it is not even started.

You are humiliating yourself in front of the posters of this thread.

The Man said:
So now your ‘non-strict’ nonsense is simply not mathematical,

So now we see once again that Mathematics for you is "A,B"-only reasoning.

The Man said:
So the definition is vague “because the definition is based on strict things”?

The standard definition is too weak in order to deal with real vagueness, exactly because it is closed under strict-only variables.

The Man said:
Once again you set a new standard for self-contradiction.

Once again your strict hammer hitting your strict head.

The Man said:
What “definition”? The definition of a heap? What “strict things” is that “based on”? What definition of a heap are you using and where did you get it from?

The "heap" is the transition between the symmetry and vagueness of the micro realm and the asymmetry and strictness of the macro realm.

The Man said:
Once again Doron the contradiction stem directly from your assertions,

Once again The Man the contradiction stem directly from your limited "A,B"-reasoning, that has no ability to get "AB".

The Man said:
A paradox that is simple to understand and simple to resolve, as in this case simply the result of the vagueness of natural language.

Please solve it by using your "A,B"-only formal reasoning.

The stage is yours. :popcorn1

The Man said:
Once again show that specific “measurement” distinguishing “micro” from “macro”

It can easily be understood by mind that are using "AB" AND "A,B" reasoning.

The Man said:
Stop lying Doron, but you just can’t can you.

Again why should anyone continue a conversation with a compulsive liar?

Stop cheating yourself.

Again why should anyone continue a conversation with a compulsive self cheater?

epix · Aug 29, 2011

doronshadmi said:
The "heap" is the transition between the symmetry and vagueness of the micro realm and the asymmetry and strictness of the macro realm.

The "heap" http://www.logicalparadoxes.info/heap/ is a mental masturbation utterly disconnected from a real world. Normal folks don't have any problems using collective nouns the way there is no confusion. Only a lunatic would call a single person a crowd. The pretenders stole no problem issue just to make a "paradox" out of it. It's just another good-for-nothing abstract copulation. But it is a rational thought, as opposed to your explanation.

The vagueness of the micro realm causing asymmetry and strictness of the macro realm.

doronshadmi · Aug 31, 2011

Here is en example of a spectral measurement between two silts pattern and one silt pattern:

http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/06/q-what-is-a-measurement-in-quantum-mechanics/

doronshadmi · Aug 31, 2011

epix said:
The "heap" http://www.logicalparadoxes.info/heap/ is a mental masturbation utterly disconnected from a real world.
[/url]

The real world is not less than Vagueness AND Strictness as a one comprehensive realm.

The Man · Sep 1, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Stop cheating yourself. The article explicitly deals with intermediate measurement, between

Did you even look at what that “measurement” was? I expect not as they explicitly assert it is only a measurement of one aspect (fringe visibility), a wave aspect.

doronshadmi said:
by asserting that

They assert far more than that Doron, read the paper in its entirety and not just some collection of words you can pull from it at different locations in that paper.

doronshadmi said:
Your "A,B"-only reasoning really prevents from you to get this article.

Stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others

doronshadmi said:
Try again to get the paper instead of just searching for words you want to use to make your own "A,B"-only reasoning.

I read the paper Doron and as a result did not need to search for anything. Your ‘direct perception’ has failed you once again.

doronshadmi said:
Look what is written at the end of the abstract of this article:

I’ve read it, please read the rest of the paper before that and you just might understand why they did not use the uncertainty principle in that proof (just to give you a hint only one measurement as mentioned before and I gave you another hint in the previous post).

doronshadmi said:
So what, the intermediate states are between

Read about the uncertainty principle and learn why as what is considered a particle aspect becomes more defined (to a singular location) the wave aspect (frequency) becomes less defined and as the wave aspect becomes more defined (to a singular frequency) the particle aspect (location) becomes less defined. That’s duality Doron it always involves both.

doronshadmi said:
For "A,B"-only minds like you it is not even started.

So what, you don’t even want to play your own game as you almost immediately contradict yourself, you end your own game of just yourself by yourself.

doronshadmi said:
You are humiliating yourself in front of the posters of this thread.

Well, you could certainly use quite a bit more humility, Doron

doronshadmi said:
So now we see once again that Mathematics for you is "A,B"-only reasoning.

It was your claim Doron not mine, why most you always attempt to distance yourself from your own claims and even try to ascribe them to someone else.

doronshadmi said:
The standard definition is too weak in order to deal with real vagueness, exactly because it is closed under strict-only variables.

“real vagueness” do you just have this fill in the blank “real ______” retort that you keep on your computer?

doronshadmi said:
Once again your strict hammer hitting your strict head.

It was hummer and head, do try to get things straight.

doronshadmi said:
The "heap" is the transition between the symmetry and vagueness of the micro realm and the asymmetry and strictness of the macro realm.

Fine, indicate that specific “transition” in your TURD, as asked before.

doronshadmi said:
Once again The Man the contradiction stem directly from your limited "A,B"-reasoning, that has no ability to get "AB".

Nope, just from your self-contradictory assertions.

doronshadmi said:
Please solve it by using your "A,B"-only formal reasoning.

The stage is yours.

I have claimed no “"A,B"-only formal reasoning”. It is just your nonsense Doron. Please show how you use it to solve anything.

doronshadmi said:
It can easily be understood by mind that are using "AB" AND "A,B" reasoning.

Fine then show your specific TURD distinction you claimed before.

doronshadmi said:
Stop cheating yourself.

Never started

doronshadmi said:
Again why should anyone continue a conversation with a compulsive self cheater?

You tell me, or actually answer the questions asked.

doronshadmi · Sep 1, 2011

The Man said:
Read about the uncertainty principle and learn why as what is considered a particle aspect becomes more defined (to a singular location) the wave aspect (frequency) becomes less defined and as the wave aspect becomes more defined (to a singular frequency) the particle aspect (location) becomes less defined. That’s duality Doron it always involves both.

Indeed duality always involves both, such that it is changeable from 50%;50% which-way state (which is characterized by a wave pattern with non-strict localization) to 0%;100% which-way state (which is characterized by a single slit pattern with strict localization) by using partial measurements that are done between 50%;50% to 0%;100% , as shown, for example, in http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/06/q-what-is-a-measurement-in-quantum-mechanics/:

Any way that you do it, a partial measurement affects the interference pattern. What’s very exciting is that you can slide cleanly from “no measurement” (50%/50%) to “total measurement” (0%/100%).

Dr. Shahar Dolev wrote:

במאמר מפתח הראה אנגלרט⁵⁸ כי ניתן לגרום למערכת קוונטית לבטא את כל ספקטרום ההתנהגות שבין גל לחלקיק.

[58] http://www.atomwave.org/rmparticle/...topic/decoherence refs/englert visibility.pdf

I'll translate it:

"במאמר מפתח הראה אנגלרט⁵⁸ כי ניתן לגרום למערכת קוונטית לבטא את כל ספקטרום ההתנהגות שבין גל לחלקיק"

"In a Key article Englert⁵⁸ showed that it is possible to cause a quantum system to express the whole spectrum between a wave and a particle."

It does not mean that this sanctum is not a complementary state between a wave and a particle.

By using URDT one enables to measure this spectrum, which exists between the non-locality of a wave state and the locality of the particle state.

The non-locality is expressed as superposition of identities of the quantum objects, which has the symmetrical nature of wave patterns.

A gradual break of this symmetry provides the strict local nature of quantum objects as particles.

Tools like Schrödinger equation are not useful in this case because they are based on strict variables that prevent the ability to deal with the superposition of identities of the quantum objects.

doronshadmi · Sep 1, 2011

The Man said:
Fine, indicate that specific “transition” in your TURD, as asked before.

Again "A,B"-only reasoning can't comprehend, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7511706&postcount=16304 .

The Man said:
I have claimed no “"A,B"-only formal reasoning”.

You can't because you are closed under it.

The Man said:
Fine then show your specific TURD distinction you claimed before.

First please get out of your strict-only box. Without actually doing it, you can't get URDT.

doronshadmi · Sep 2, 2011

The following diagram rigorously shows how 0 dimensional and 1 dimensional spaces are atoms (they are not divided by the two given domains between them):

Furthermore:

The 0 dimensional space is local w.r.t the domains and the 1 dimensional space.

The 1 dimensional space is non-local w.r.t the domains and the 0 dimensional space.

-------------------------

The following diagram rigorously shows how Non-locality stands at the basis of the symmetry of vague identities, and how Locality stands at the basis of the asymmetry of strict identities:

Generally, the symmetry of vague identities is the property of the micro realm, where the asymmetry of strict identities is the property of the macro realm.

jsfisher · Sep 2, 2011

doronshadmi said:
The following diagram rigorously shows how 0 dimensional and 1 dimensional spaces are atoms (they are not divided by the two given domains between them):

[qimg]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6181/6107078932_e4a3290e45_z.jpg[/qimg]

Doron, do you even know what 'rigorously' means? Another couple of months until Hanukkah; better start dropping hints now for that English dictionary you so desperately need.

doronshadmi · Sep 3, 2011

jsfisher said:
Doron, do you even know what 'rigorously' means? Another couple of months until Hanukkah; better start dropping hints now for that English dictionary you so desperately need.

'rigorous' is not less than the complementary understanding of non-locality and locality as a one unified framework.

It means that visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic skills are actually used.

A common misunderstanding of what is written above, is based on the equivalence between 'rigorous', 'strictness', or 'step-by-step' reasoning, because only verbal_symbolic skills are used.

For example:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rigorous

1. : manifesting, exercising, or favoring rigor : very strict

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rigorous

4. (Mathematics) (Philosophy / Logic) Maths Logic (of a proof) making the validity of the successive steps completely explicit

Here are some definitions for discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigour

Intellectual rigour

An attempted short definition of intellectual rigour might be that no suspicion of double standard be allowed: uniform principles should be applied.

I agree with that, the unity of the forms of the considered framework should be applied, and it means that Unity is the natural basis of both calmness and its complex expressions ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7511706&postcount=16304 ).

Mathematical rigour

Mathematical rigour can refer both to rigorous methods of mathematical proof and to rigorous methods of mathematical practice (thus relating to other interpretations of rigour)

The problem with mathematical rigour is its limitation only to context-dependent frameworks (no cross-contexts framework is used, or in other words, Mathematics (as developed mostly by verbal_symbolic skills) has no unified basis).

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

In mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true.

In other words, only context-dependent frameworks are used.

--------------

jsfisher, as long as you get Mathematics as context-dependent frameworks by using only your verbal_symbolic skills, you can't comprehend, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7511706&postcount=16304 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7533869&postcount=16317.

doronshadmi · Sep 3, 2011

Here is an example of how 'rigour' is based only on verbal_symbolic skills ( http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/mth251/cq/Stage3/Lesson/theDefinition.html ) actually does not work, exactly because by using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic skills epsilon > delta > 0.

The graphic used in http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/mth251/cq/Stage3/Lesson/graphical.html does not change the fact that epsilon > delta > 0.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/mth251/cq/Stage3/Lesson/theDefinition.html

Note that all words such as "arbitrarily near" or "sufficiently small" are gone from the rigorous definition. The definition is perhaps a complicated-looking mathematical statement involving two "quantifiers" (for every .... there is), but it leaves nothing up to interpretation or chance.

Many nice words that do not change the fact that epsilon > delta > 0.

Deeper than primes

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing